NC - MacDonald family murders at Fort Bragg, 1970 - Jeffrey MacDonald innocent?

[Wudge]

Wudge, I have seen you post this same rhetoric about other murder cases, apparently, you seem to think that unless the murder was filmed and then shown on Fox or CNN for the entire world to see, then "reasonable doubt" exists. You need to learn a thing or two about critical thinking.

Unless a person is a cauldron stirrer or thinks they are omnipotent, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is always the key issue. And the majority of Americans do not qualify to guage it, because few understand it, such as someone advocating the use of "to a moral certainty" -- another good reason for why we need professional jurors.

All you can say about this case -- or most any circumstantial evidence murder case based on weak evidence -- is MacDonald might have committed the murders, or MacDonald might not have committed the murders.

I assess evidence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more. Unlike others, I do not pretend to be God.

 

[robinparten]

Unless a person is a cauldron stirrer or thinks they are omnipotent, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is always the key issue. And the majority of Americans do not qualify to guage it, because few understand it, such as someone advocating the use of "to a moral certainty" -- another good reason for why we need professional jurors.

All you can say about this case -- or most any circumstantial evidence murder case based on weak evidence -- is MacDonald might have committed the murders, or MacDonald might not have committed the murders.

I assess evidence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more. Unlike others, I do not pretend to be God.

You do not understand reasonable doubt, perhaps the definition that satisfies the Supreme Court will help you.

"Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: it is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. App. in No. 92-9049, p. 49 (emphasis added) (Sandoval App.) "

Based upon that definition, I can say that Macdonald is guilty of the murder of his wife and kids.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Unless a person is a cauldron stirrer or thinks they are omnipotent, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is always the key issue. And the majority of Americans do not qualify to guage it, because few understand it, such as someone advocating the use of "to a moral certainty" -- another good reason for why we need professional jurors.

All you can say about this case -- or most any circumstantial evidence murder case based on weak evidence -- is MacDonald might have committed the murders, or MacDonald might not have committed the murders.

I assess evidence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more. Unlike others, I do not pretend to be God.

"Reasonable doubt" of the tryor of fact on that case (i.e., the juror in judgment on that case. Not "your" reasonable doubt.

 

[Wudge]

"Reasonable doubt" of the tryor of fact on that case (i.e., the juror in judgment on that case. Not "your" reasonable doubt.

I'll be happy to play the game of: Assessing evidence against our proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

What is your error rate for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

You do not understand reasonable doubt

In this area, you're like a little leaguer telling Babe Ruth that he does not know how to hit home runs.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'll be happy to play the game of: Assessing evidence against our proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

What is your error rate for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Well you'd first have to convince me that one of your pet defendants was actually innocent before we could agree to an "error rate." I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

 

[oftenwonder]

Unless a person is a cauldron stirrer or thinks they are omnipotent, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is always the key issue. And the majority of Americans do not qualify to guage it, because few understand it, such as someone advocating the use of "to a moral certainty" -- another good reason for why we need professional jurors.

All you can say about this case -- or most any circumstantial evidence murder case based on weak evidence -- is MacDonald might have committed the murders, or MacDonald might not have committed the murders.

I assess evidence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more. Unlike others, I do not pretend to be God.

MacDonald was not convicted in 6 1/2 hours on "weak evidence". Also, please don't insult the people who convicted MacDonald by saying that they were not qualified to judge this case. You have to remember that the defense had a hand in picking the jurors; the decision was not totally up to the prosecutors on who would be deciding if MacDonald was guilty or innocent. You have to know that the jurors' decision to convict an "all American Boy", family man, doctor and Green Beret did not come easy. If I am recalling correctly, one of the men jurors came into the courtroom crying after the verdict was reached. As far as evidence goes, IMO, the only thing missing was a video tape of MacDonald committing the murders. You need to go back and read what evidence there was. The easiest thing to follow as far as evidence goes, in my opinion, is the blood trail. The blood told the story of what happened. I don't believe anyone here pretends to be God; however, we are free thinkers and the majority of us do have common sense and brains. The evidence MacDonald left after he killed his family convicted MacDonald and his lying words and actions sealed his fate.

 

[Wudge]

Well you'd first have to convince me that one of your pet defendants was actually innocent before we could agree to an "error rate." I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Any juror, with half a working brain cell, knows they have a chance to error on every verdict. As such, a real life error rate is a given. What is your error rate standard?

In other words, out of a hundred verdict assessments, how many innocent people accused of murder are you willing to send to prison or to be executed based on your error rate standard?

For example, is your error rate standard, 1 out of 10, 1 out of 15, or 1 out of 20, etc.. ?

 

[Bunny]

This is going to shock you, but, due to a the Supreme Court ruling in the eighties, states were required to remove "to a moral certainty" (vague, lack of clarity) from their "reasonable doubt" jury instructions. Someday, you might want to upgrade and join us in today's world.

Wudge, the constant little put-downs and childish snide remarks really aren't necessary. If you had read my post a little more closely, you'd have seen that I clearly said "I assume to a moral certainty," because I was unsure if that phrase was still used when describing reasonable doubt.

Robinparten, thanks for posting the description of reasonable doubt for us; I appreciate that and I'm sure others do also.

Wudge, I've only been here a couple of days, but it's not hard to see that you don't seem to be able to discuss the evidence in this case very much; you only seem to come back with "snicker" and one-liners that are meant to turn the case into a referendum on what's right and wrong with the justice system in North Carolina in recent years, not what was right or wrong with this specific case. You're free to post whatever you like, of course, but it'd be nice to actually discuss the evidence in this case with you, without having to put up with the constant snide remarks.

So, to that end, what do you think of the defense's silence these days with regard to the issue of the hair fragment found in Kim's nail scrapings? Why do you think they're being so quiet on this issue now, when for years they held it up as proof of "intruders"?

 

[robinparten]

In this area, you're like a little leaguer telling Babe Ruth that he does not know how to hit home runs.

I hate to break it to you, but your opinion of your comprehension of the legal system is highly overrated. However, it is terribly amusing.

 

[Wudge]

MacDonald was not convicted in 6 1/2 hours on "weak evidence". Also, please don't insult the people who convicted MacDonald by saying that they were not qualified to judge this case.

It's no mystery that I believe most people have no business sitting in a jury box, including MacDonald's jury.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Any juror, with half a working brain cell, knows they have a chance to error on every verdict. As such, a real life error rate is a given. What is your error rate standard?

In other words, out of a hundred verdict assessments, how many innocent people accused of murder are you willing to send to prison or to be executed based on your error rate standard?

For example, is your error rate standard, 1 out of 10, 1 out of 15, or 1 out of 20, etc.. ?

It depends on what they're convicted of doing Wudge. If they're convicted of stealing a video from Blockbuster, I'm probably not going to say they need to be executed. However, if they're say convicted of murdering their wife and little girls, like McDonald was. I'd be willing to actually execute that guy myself.

 

[Bunny]

Hello, guys. My first post on this board. It's good to see that many of the MacDonald case discussion Hall of Famers are here. Cami, Bunny, Rashomon..... nice. Well, to the business at hand.

JTF, so very glad to see you here! And Cami and Rash and oftenwonder...gee, this place is getting to feel more like home every day.

And to Jules and Sharpar and robinparten and the others here, nice to meet you folks!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

It's no mystery that I believe most people have no business sitting in a jury box, including MacDonald's jury.

And its no mystery that most of us don't think that you have any business in a jury box. So does that make us all even? You forget that its our system of law. Unless and until that system is changed, you can sit here all day and try to put those of us who believe these juror did a GOOD JOB in our places. But you're not helping those defendants you believe to be innocent and you're not doing one thing to change the system. So, why not put your comments into a letter and send off to someone who can do something about it?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

If any of you think this thread is going to turn into a flame fest, you've got another thing coming. I'll lock this thread and start kicking bodies out of here. STOP IT NOW PLEASE.

 

[Wudge]

It depends on what they're convicted of doing Wudge. If they're convicted of stealing a video from Blockbuster, I'm probably not going to say they need to be executed. However, if they're say convicted of murdering their wife and little girls, like McDonald was. I'd be willing to actually execute that guy myself.

I missed your error rate for murder cases)? Is it 1 out of 10, 1 out of 15. etc..?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I missed your error rate for murder cases)? Is it 1 out of 10, 1 out of 15. etc..?

Possibly 1 out of 100,000.

 

[Wudge]

Possibly 1 out of 100,000.

Obviously, under that standard, MacDonald should be free.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Obviously, under that standard, MacDonald should be free.

Well, you see Wudge, unfortunately, he ain't the one.

 

[Wudge]

Well, you see Wudge, unfortunately, he ain't the one.

Unfortunate is, understatedly, correct.

Is it not at least somewhat amusing that this is yet another NC case in high dispute. Wonderful state, huh?